MAKHAN SINGH Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sub-section 5 of Section 15 of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restrictions) Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala holding that the demised premises are required by the landlady-respondent for her own occupation and use. It has also been found that the necessity of the landlady-respondent is bonafide and is not a mere wish as she required the demised shop for opening a grocery business therein. The analysis of the evidence and the view of the Appellate Authority passed thereon read as under :

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that the plea of the tenant-petitioner highlighting that the landlady-respondent has acquired another property was rejected and it was held that there is no worthwhile evidence to conclude that the landlady-respondent owned any other shop or non-residential premises within the urban area of Barnala or she has vacated any other non-residential premises. The landlady-respondent is an unfortunate widow. Her husband was assassinated by the terrorist during the days of violence in this part of the country.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and pursuing the judgment of both the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It is well-settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and necessities. The tenant does not have any say in these matters. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 and Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., (2001) 1 SCC 679 : 2000(1) RCR (Rent) 135 (SC).